Frank needs to study up on how human rights come about. To take one example, voting rights have changed over time in the U.S., and God didn’t play a role at any stage.

As for God giving rights, he’s hardly a good moral model (more here, here, and here). The Bible isn’t law in the United States; the Constitution is, and Christianity is legal in the United States courtesy of the (secular) Constitution. “Because the Bible says so” is an inherently impotent argument in this country.

But let’s go there anyway and see what the Bible says. The Bible doesn’t directly address same-sex marriage. It does, however, make clear its disapproval of mixed-race (or intertribal) marriage. Here’s a modernrejection of interracial marriage from Bob Jones University built on an honest reading of the Bible.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. (1998)

The statement is unnecessarily hesitant. God plainly forbids intermarriage with foreign tribes (Deuteronomy 7:3). The prohibition against intermarriage is also given in Ezra (9:2, 10:10) and Nehemiah (chapter 13). King Solomon was also chastised for his foreign wives (1 Kings 11).

The apologist might respond that the prohibitions against intermarriage were meant to avoid temptations to worship other gods. That’s true to some extent but irrelevant—they’re still anti-miscegeny laws. If they’re wrong today, why excuse them back then? The Bible’s version of “God-given” rights and demands isn’t a morality than we can tolerate.

To understand the Bible on homosexuality, consider its stance on slavery. Some Christians say that slavery in the Old Testament was just God adapting to the imperfect, wicked customs of the time. All right, but take the same approach toward homosexuality. If God’s attitude toward slavery was adapted to the times (though that attitude makes no sense today), then maybe God’s attitude toward homosexuality was similarly adapted to the times and makes no sense today. These Christians might respond that the Old Testament was wrong on slavery but right on homosexuality, but what—besides personal opinion or preference—would they base that on?

The Bible gives no support to Frank’s “marriage = babies” argument (argument #5 in our critique). One kind of marriage we do see, however, is the marriage of Jesus to the church (as in Ephesians 5:25–27). In this marriage, it’s love that is central, not babies.

Paul is no asset to the Christian position either. He said, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). This applied to married couples as well (1 Cor. 7:12)—so much for the celebrated role of procreation. He discouraged marriage (7:8–9) and rejected divorce (7:10–11). Marriage wasn’t even a Christian sacrament in the Church until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. I’m not surprised that Frank hides from this part of the Bible since it defeats his position.

10. Because morals come from the Creator!

Forget about the “separation of church and state” objection. It doesn’t apply here. . . . [The founders] recognized our moral rights come from the Creator and founded the country on “Nature’s Law” consistent with Christianity.

Since the Constitution is explicitly secular, history revisionists like to go back to references to a “Creator” and “Nature’s Law” in the Declaration of Independence. The DoI is an important historical document, but that’s it. These references impose nothing on American society today, and they’re not even Christian references but are deist.

The DoI makes clear that “Governments [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed,” not God. And when a government becomes abusive, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” The government answers to the people, not God. Frank can’t find much support in this argument. More here.

11. My standard can beat your standard!

Frank next appeals to objective morality. You gotta have an objectively correct moral stance to make any moral claim, Frank tells us, and such a stance admits a god to ground it.

Homosexual activists say we’re wrong. But we can’t be “wrong” unless there is a real standard of “Right” from which we deviate.

Frank adds qualifiers—a real standard or something being truly right—to refer to objective morality, but I doubt that such a thing exists. I impatiently await evidence that there are moral truths that would be true whether anyone believed them or not (explored more here, here, and here).

So we should ask same sex marriage advocates, “What’s your standard? Who said same sex marriage is a ‘right’?” You and your friends? That’s not a right. That’s an opinion.

It’s like Frank isn’t aware of how social change works. You have a moral belief because you’ve concluded that it’s correct. You can then explore the why, but in the end the buck stops with you. It is your opinion.

That may not be much, but it’s all we’ve got. Groundless handwaving that God agrees with you counts for nothing.

So liberals can believe in and fight for same-sex marriage, but they can’t justify it as truly being a right without reference to the Creator. If they do reference the Creator, then they have the rationally dubious task of arguing that God affirms same-sex marriage.

I don’t claim that my conclusions are objectively true, and your claims to be able to tap into objective moral truth are backed up by nothing more than wishful thinking. I agree that God doesn’t affirm same-sex marriage, but God does affirm polygamy. You still want to model marriage after what God says?

To be continued.

Little Girl: “I’m so glad I don’t like asparagus.”Friend: “Why, my dear?”Little Girl: “Because if I did like it, I should have to eat it, and I can’t bear it!”
— moral difficulty proposed by Lewis Carroll

Ah, Frank Turek, Frank Turek. The gift that keeps on giving. Where would this blog be without him?

Herald Newman

There are always plenty of apologists out there who spew nonsense. If not Turek then you have your choice of people like Koukl, the McDowell’s, Lennox, Zacharias. The list is practically endless. If you want you can even go into the the less plebeian, and more “sophisticated”, Catholic theologians like Feser.

I don’t see the Christian bad idea factory shutting down anytime soon.

skl

I’m not sure what the purpose of this series is, given that the war over same-sex marriage is over (Obergefell
v. Hodges decision).

I guess the message must be that some things are never really over.

Robert Serrano

The assumption that the “war over same-sex marriage” is over is the surest way to ensure that it comes right back to life, unfortunately.

With Roe v. Wade in our distant past, there’s no need to discuss abortion, right? It’s water under the bridge, and everyone’s just gonna move on. Those rights are permanent.

The other reason, as I believe I noted in the opening post, is that as fundamentalist nutjobs move away from rejection of SSM (and I don’t believe they have), I want a record of their prior hatred to follow them around forever like dog shit on their shoe.

skl

… as fundamentalist nutjobs move away from rejection of SSM (and I don’t believe they have), I want a record of their prior hatred to follow them around forever like dog shit on their shoe.

So, even if they “evolve” to accept SSM (say, the way Barack Obama did), you’ll continue to tar them forever for their prior position.

Barack Obama came around publicly, perhaps even apologetically. He would today acknowledge his prior position.

What I’m anticipating from the far right crowd is for them to come about grudgingly. Their “acceptance” would simply be an end to their attacks on homosexuals and SSM. And, once they had put their old position behind them, they will do their best to pretend they were always on the right side of this question.

There’s no need to remind Obama, since he will acknowledge his past. Look at Christians today, and they see their past as always being on the right side of the issue.

That’s just my prediction of the future. We can see how it plays out.

Otto

>>>”I’m not sure what the purpose of this series is…”

Again, no one is surprised.

Lex Lata

Bob, at the risk of being pedantic, I’d quibble with your characterization of the Framers’ thinking on rights. Or rather, I think it elides an important historical nuance.

Natural legal theory–including the notion that human beings are beneficiaries of natural, inherent rights–stretches in certain ways back to Aristotle and Cicero, and was commonplace among Enlightenment thinkers, both in Europe and the New World. The basic liberal political framework, as articulated by Locke, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson, and others, consisted of essentially two elements. 1. God (or Jove, or the Creator, or the Architect of the Universe, or whatever) vests in us natural rights discoverable by reason. 2. We mere mortals constitute government among ourselves to protect and preserve those rights, as best we can. The first Ten Amendments didn’t create or grant rights, by Madison’s reckoning. Rather, they articulated limitations on the government’s authority to infringe on pre-existing natural rights.

Now, of course we don’t have to agree with every aspect of natural legal theory, especially as 21st century atheists. But Turek’s not grossly wrong in his summary of the basic thinking at the time of the Founding.

Raging Bee

…1. God (or Jove, or the Creator, or the Architect of the Universe, or whatever)…

Or, as at least one of the Founders said, “the god of nature,” which basically means whatever entity, forces or circumstances led to us being a sentient species (left unspecified so as to prevent one religion crediting everything to THEIR god). As in, whoever/whatever created us as we are, thereby, ipso facto, gave us the right to use the natural abilities we were created/evolved with, including, most importantly, the right to use our mental/intellectual abilities to their fullest and pursue our full potential as thinking, feeling, reasoning beings.

So our rights don’t really come from god(s), so much as from our basic nature.

Lex Lata

Yeah, I’d say different fellas at the time had different formulations–some more orthodox and overtly Christian, some more heterodox and deistic (or even pantheistic).

Jim Jones

> Natural legal theory … was commonplace among Enlightenment
thinkers, both in Europe and the New World.

It only exists because otherwise the conclusion is that we made up these laws because we wanted to.

eric

Maybe. Jefferson and Madison also liked to retcon by claiming a long historical pedigree for things which were really their (or, at least, newish) ideas. It helped strengthen their case in support of the government they wanted to build. And it wasn’t like they were unique in this – the entire KJV was written to make it sound centuries older than it actually is, just to give it street cred.

The founders could think whatever they want, but what counts is what they put in place that structures the government. The oft-cited DoI doesn’t count; it’s the Constitution that matters. And it’s 100% secular.

I’m sure I’m not saying anything you didn’t already know. Perhaps you should point out the passage(s) that concern you.

Kevin K

What you say is true … but what Turek, et al, try to do is hijack “God” to mean Yahweh the Magnificent™, when those philosophers were mainly deists. They most certainly did not mean to invoke that specific god of the Hebrew people.

Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

Human laws can only recognize God-given rights.

Since our human laws recognize the right of Same sex couples to marry, then we must conclude it’s a God-given right.
Why does Frank want to oppose God-given rights?

Martin Penwald

Human laws can only recognize God-given rights.

So, I guess Frankie would be fine with the establishment of islamic sharia.

Doubting Thomas

I think Frank should go to Saudi Arabia and demonstrate that his right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech are god given and not derived from people by decrying Mohammad as a false prophet and pedophile.

At the time the Constitution was even denounced by some because it didn’t invoke God. The Declaration meanwhile reflects a deist philosophy, rather than Christian (natural rights was also more popular with the deists). Turek would probably have been among those who opposed it I think.

It’s not like the godly faction didn’t get their chance. Patrick Henry was one of those who wanted more God into the Constitution. They had their chance, they made their case, and they lost. To their credit, they went along with the consensus opinion.

I didn’t know interracial marriage was still an issue in some Christian circles. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, though – once the verses are there, they are able to be used in all sorts of different ways.

In theory I would have thought it was part of the switch from being a largely racially based religion (Judaism) to a competing religion which dropped or repurposed a lot of the distinctives to appeal to all nations (Christianity). I’m guessing most Christians nowadays would assume the command was “replaced” by “only marry believers, regardless of race” (“don’t be unequally yoked, etc.”). Chalk it up to another example of Christians not understanding the terms on which their religion (illegitimately) appropriated another religion’s religious text. Honestly, I think they’d save themselves a lot of trouble if they threw away a lot of the OT and then were extremely cautious quoting from the rest…

The OT is both a hindrance (Judaism as an embarrassing tribal religion) and a blessing (nice quotes to use against the gays). Both Gnostic and Marcionite versions of Christianity didn’t keep the OT and so had a much better defense against the problem of evil–the guy responsible for the mayhem on earth wasn’t their god.

aCultureWarrior

While Jews aren’t allowed to marry outside of their religion, there is no where in the New Testament where Jesus forbids interracial marriage. Besides, race isn’t an immoral behavior, homosexuality is, and it’s clear in the New Testament that Jesus as well as His Apostles (i.e those that later shared His Word) abhor homosexuality.

there is no where in the New Testament where Jesus forbids interracial marriage.

That’s OK—his dad does.

Besides, race isn’t an immoral behavior, homosexual is

I think you meant, “Neither race nor homosexuality is immoral.” No?

it’s clear in the New Testament that Jesus as well as His Apostles (i.e those that later shared His Word) abhor homosexuality.

Remind me—where did Jesus and/or his apostles discuss homosexuality?

aCultureWarrior

*”Dad” was referring to Judaism.
*God didn’t destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of it’s inhabitants skin color. And contrary to what you atheists/secular humanists are passing off, He didn’t do it because they weren’t hospitable (one could argue that a group of homosexual men raping Angels who came to earth in the form of men would be an extremely inhospitable act).
*Seriously, you want evidence that the New Testament speaks out against homosexuality?https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html
Better yet, show where Jesus embraced homosexual relationships, and while you’re at it, other acts such as bestiality and incest, as they’re mentioned right along with homosexuality in Leviticus.

What a coincidence! He also didn’t destroy it because everyone living there was gay.

And contrary to what you atheists/secular humanists are passing off, He didn’t do it because they weren’t hospitable (one could argue that a group of homosexual men raping Angels who came to earth in the form of men would be an extremely inhospitable act).

The crime was rape.

*Seriously, you want evidence that the New Testament speaks out against homosexuality?

Well, that’s not really Jesus and/or his apostles, but OK, let’s go with that. Your link says that the New Testament references were supporting the OT references, but the OT doesn’t really say anything about homosexuality as it’s practiced today, does it? Sodom and Gomorrah is about rape, and Lev. 18 and 20 are about ritual abominations like eating shellfish rather than things that are objectively harmful. Loving homosexual relationships aren’t mentioned.

And I’ve never understood Rom. 1:26–7: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Explain this to me. Why is it past tense? Who are these people and where/when are we talking about?

aCultureWarrior

*Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, God in the flesh and in the New Testament did away with Jewish ceremonial and civil laws, but not God’s universal moral laws, i.e. many Torah laws are inapplicable in the New Testament.
*If you mean homosexual rape:
“…The Bible then informs us, “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them'” (Genesis 19:4–5). The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then “the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities…” (Genesis 19:24).https://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html
*The sin of homosexuality (as shown) is mentioned throughout the Old and New Testament. If you have a verse or a passage showing where God/Jesus Christ embraces “loving” homosexual relationships, then please share it.
And again: eating shellfish, wearing blended materials and cross planting seeds in a garden are not under God’s universal moral laws, they were Jewish ceremonial laws and were rescinded by Jesus in the new covenant.
*Commentaries explain Biblical verses and passages in detail.https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/1-26.htm
Surely you’re not implying with your past tense attempt at an argument that God now approves of homosexuality? Evidence please.

*Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, God in the flesh and in the New Testament did away with Jewish ceremonial and civil laws, but not God’s universal moral laws, i.e. many Torah laws are inapplicable in the New Testament.

And what does this mean? Do you discard the kosher food laws? How about the anti-gay laws? (Hint: I think they come as a package.)

You want someone else to fight your battles? Nope. When you make a ridiculous argument, you get to defend it here.

You want to tell us that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality? Go.

*The sin of homosexuality (as shown) is mentioned throughout the Old and New Testament. If you have a verse or a passage showing where God/Jesus Christ embraces “loving” homosexual relationships, then please share it.

1. The Bible doesn’t matter for laws in a country governed by a secular Constitution.

2. The Bible doesn’t talk about loving homosexual relationships, either pro or con. What a shame that you can’t point to Jesus to justify your xenophobia.

And again: eating shellfish, wearing blended materials and cross planting seeds in a garden are not under God’s universal moral laws, they were Jewish ceremonial laws and were rescinded by Jesus in the new covenant.

You mean the stuff in Lev. 18 and 20? Right—the bits against homosexuality are in there as well.

*Commentaries explain Biblical verses and passages in detail.

Darn it all, those authors aren’t here to debate with me. But you are. You think this passage in Romans is relevant to the question of same-sex marriage? Then defend it yourself.

Surely you’re not implying with your past tense attempt at an argument that God now approves of homosexuality?

I asked a question. I honestly don’t understand this passage. But you do, so I’ll take this opportunity to learn something. Go.

aCultureWarrior

*I covered your first question in my reply to Jon Morgan. You must understand the ceremonial, dietary and civil laws given to the Jews by God, as well as understanding His universal moral laws given to all of mankind, in order for us to continue this aspect of our discussion.
*If you need other information as to why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (besides the intent for homosexuals to rape Angels appearing as men), here it is from the same article that I posted earlier:
“Similarly, Jude 7 declares, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.”
*If you want to turn this discussion over to the original intent of the Founding Fathers (who abhorred homosexuality) and the Judeo-Christian based documents that they wrote:
The Bible and Government: Biblical Principles: Basis for America’s Lawshttp://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government
*If homosexuality is a sin, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it?https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-homosexuality.html
Crystal clear Bob.
*Romans 1:26 is relevant to homosexuality.
*Looking at McKnight’s commentary, it’s a lesson for future generations:
“But it is equally true, that their religion does not, like the religion of the heathen, encourage them in their crimes; but deters them, by denouncing, in the most direct terms, the heaviest wrath of God against all who are guilty of them. Besides, the gospel, by its divine light, hath led the nations to correct their civil laws; so that in every Christian country these enormities are prohibited, and when discovered are punished with the greatest severity. The gospel, therefore, hath made us far more knowing, and, I may add, more virtuous, than the most enlightened and most polished of the heathen nations were formerly.” — Macknight.
Thanks for the debate Bob.

You must understand the ceremonial, dietary and civil laws given to the Jews by God, as well as understanding His universal moral laws given to all of mankind, in order for us to continue this aspect of our discussion.

You must understand that many of the OT prohibitions were ritual abominations in order for us to continue our discussion. When you drop ritual ideas of food purity and rules against mixing, you also drop the ritual rules against homosexuality.

*If you need other information as to why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (besides the intent for homosexuals to rape Angels appearing as men), here it is from the same article that I posted earlier:
“Similarly, Jude 7 declares, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.”

I get it—when someone has a religious agenda, they can see pretty much whatever they want.

Read the story—it’s not very long. The crime was rape. Or are you saying that if the angels had been female, that if they’d raped them, that would’ve been OK?

*If you want to turn this discussion over to the original intent of the Founding Fathers (who abhorred homosexuality) and the Judeo-Christian based documents that they wrote:

Why change the subject? The only relevant government idea here is that “because the Bible sez!” has no place in making laws in a country governed by a secular constitution.

The Bible and Government: Biblical Principles: Basis for America’s Laws

Here’s your homework: in the Bible, find the rules demanding democracy and freedom of religion. We’ll start with those. After you come back empty, we can talk about what other fundamental principles that we hold dear came from the Enlightenment, not the Bible.

*If homosexuality is a sin, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it?

And if slavery was wrong, why didn’t Jesus ever say so?

Yep, if you start asking about inconsistencies in the Bible, you’ll be talking about that for a long time!

*Looking at McKnight’s commentary, it’s a lesson for future generations:

Tl;dr. Looks like a big pile of gibberish, but if you found something useful, pass it on.

And your inability to explain Rom. 1 at least makes me feel in good company. Even taking it at face value, it is no argument against homosexuality. Example: “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.” So straight women are having sex with other straight women. Yep, that’s messed up. And no, it says nothing about loving homosexual relationships.

aCultureWarrior

*What is the distinction between the Moral, Ceremonial and Civil laws of the Old Testament?https://biblicalgenderroles.com/what-is-the-distinction-between-the-moral-ceremonial-and-civil-laws-of-the-old-testament/
*Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, I’m only passing on what the Bible says.
*The God-fearing Founding Fathers, many who were ordained ministers, had no intention of having a secular nation. They didn’t need to put any mention of God in the Constitution, because He was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (numerous times) and other documents was well as in the State Constitutions of the respective colonies.
*That’s easy: there are numerous verses in the bible about civil government and the type of leaders that we are to have. The Founding Fathers also knew that while they gave us a nation with Judeo-Christian laws and culture, that no one can force mankind to have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
*I can see you’re getting frustrated Bob. Galatians 4:16

*Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, I’m only passing on what the Bible says.

Then don’t shoehorn it to mean “homosex is bad” when it doesn’t say that. Clearly rape is bad.

*The God-fearing Founding Fathers, many who were ordained ministers, had no intention of having a secular nation.

I’m just imagining being a fly on the wall after they signed it into effect. “Wait—I thought you put in the stuff about this being a Christian nation.”

“No, I thought you were going to do that!”

Ah, they must’ve laughed about that all day! But whatever, the Constitution is secular. You, me, and the founding fathers are stuck with it.

They didn’t need to put any mention of God in the Constitution, because He was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (numerous times)

You’re a funny guy! That’s why I enjoy chatting with you—because you put such nutty, unsubstantiated ideas into your comments!

The Declaration of Independence doesn’t matter. It’s an interesting historical document, nothing more. The law of the land is the Constitution.

Did you never ask yourself why Christians bring up the DoI so often? It’s because they wish they could refer to the Constitution, but it only slaps down their argument. The DoI is a very poor second place. And remember that the DoI says, “Congress derives its just powers from . . .” Guess what?

“ . . . from the consent of the governed”! No, not from God.

The Constitution is secular, and that’s all that matters.

and other documents was well as in the State Constitutions of the respective colonies.

(Guess what overrules state constitutions.)

*That’s easy: there are numerous verses in the bible about civil government and the type of leaders that we are to have.

Yeah? And the ones about freedom of religion and democracy are . . . ?

The Founding Fathers also knew that while they gave us a nation with Judeo-Christian laws and culture

For being such a history expert, you might want to read the Constitution.

Leaving aside the homosexuality for now (which was not in my comment) are you saying that you agree with me the OT is not a good source of guidance for Christians? If so, do you agree with me that it would be good to throw much of it away? If not, what exactly is the benefit of keeping the OT around if you still have to look to the NT to interpret which parts of the OT still apply? Or are there parts of the OT that you think still unquestionably still apply without reference to the NT?

aCultureWarrior

God’s universal moral laws, which is the source that defines sexual immorality (homosexuality, incest, bestiality, adultery) and sexual morality (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) comes from the Old Testament and carries over to the New Testament (hence the term “God’s universal moral laws”). Jewish ceremonial (clothing restrictions, etc.), dietary (not eating shellfish or pork) and civil laws (the death penalty for those caught in homosexual acts) were intended only for the Jews. So while Christians must abide by God’s universal moral laws, they can still eat shellfish, wear blended materials and witness to and legislate laws that make homosexuality a criminal act (pre Lawrence v Texas) but don’t have to punish them with death (as the Muslims currently do).

So homosexuality is wrong but God has no punishment for it? How does that work? It’s almost like you’re picking and choosing. You take “homosexuality is bad” from the OT, but you know that stoning is Bronze Age barbarity, so you find an excuse to leave that one. Be consistent.

Why don’t you just man up and say that God hates fags and demand stoning?

aCultureWarrior

He leaves man to punish (i.e. help) those who engage in homosexuality here on earth: Romans 13:4.
For those who don’t repent, all of mankind (homosexuals, adulterers, etc. etc.) will spend eternity in damnation. That’s quite a punishment Bob.
God hates sin, that’s why He came to earth as a man, and died on the cross so that mankind can have eternal life.
Regarding your reference to the inbreds at the Westboro Baptist Church: The late Fred Phelps hated everyone. He had no place in his small world for those who repented and accepted the grace of Jesus Christ.
BTW, while I’ve never had homosexual desires, I have sinned, (oh Lord have I sinned). If Jesus forgives someone like me, He will forgive anyone. All that you do is have to ask Him with your heart doing the talking.

Given your interpretation, God gives the punishment for homosexuality: stoning. You’re inconsistent by saying that the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality are in force but the punishments aren’t. Without a punishment, it’s not wrong.

God hates sin, that’s why He came to earth as a man, and died on the cross so that mankind can have eternal life.

“Died”? Read your Bible. He was out of action for a day and a half.

You can have either sacrifice or miracle. Having chosen miracle (the resurrection), you can’t also have sacrifice. Sorry.

Regarding your reference to the inbreds at the Westboro Baptist Church

Yep, they’re hateful people. But they also read the Bible consistently.

The late Fred Phelps hated everyone. He had no place in his small world for those who repented and accepted the grace of Jesus Christ.

Why should I take your interpretation of Christianity over his?

BTW, while I’ve never had homosexual desires, I have sinned, (oh Lord have I sinned). If Jesus forgives someone like me, He will forgive anyone. All that you do is have to ask Him with your heart doing the talking.

No need: Romans 5:19.

aCultureWarrior

*Remember that discussion we had a while back on Jewish Civil Laws? Stoning homosexuals (adulterers, etc.) falls under that. Again, Jesus rescinded the punishment phase of Jewish Civil laws, but not the fact that homosexuality is still a horrific sin. Remember that prior to Lawrence v Texas, homosexuality had been a crime for the best part of 200 years in the US and 2,000 years throughout westernized civilization. (A few US States decriminalized it before Lawrence v Texas, thanks to homosexual pedophile Frank Kameny’s ‘gaystapo’ tactics against the American Psychiatric Association).
You’re more than welcome to visit my “Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!” thread to learn more about the subject.

I don’t see the term “God’s universal moral laws” in the Bible. Sounds like nothing more than an assertion on your part that some laws still apply and some don’t because (reasons) – but they all need to stay in the OT just because. Unless you are arguing that they are defined as “universal moral laws” by their appearance in the NT – in which case, can’t you just use the NT? And given the OT with eternal covenants has been largely set aside (in effect, anyway) by Christians, what makes you think the NT is God’s final revelation? Will a “universal moral law” be no longer universal when it’s no longer condemned in the NNT?

It’s said how persistent the “objective” nonsense is given how elemental it is to refute.

Question 1: Would commands made by an alien race be objective?

Presumed response 1: Of course not, it is still subjective, just not originating in human subjectivity.

Question 2: Wouldn’t the same be true of god’s commands?

PR 2: No, morality is rooted in god’s nature, not his preferences.

Question 3: Ok, so morality is grounded in god’s nature, and what we consider “good” are the things that are consistent with his nature?

PR 3: Yes.

Question 4: Then how do we determine whether god’s nature is really good? If Satan, for instance, calibrated our internal compasses to align with his nature, then wouldnt we register Satan as the perfect embodiment of goodness? Would our sense be leading us toward actual goodness, or mere alignment? How could we ever answer this without appealing to some other standard?

It’s pretty funny that not only does Frank’s “objective” source solve nothing, it actually makes goodness even less knowable! And it only takes a few seconds of honest consideration to figure this stuff out.